Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
AN INVESTIGATION OF LINE AND PLANE RELATIONSHIPS
IN TWO CONCEPTS OF PAINTING
APPROVED§ ^ y / V /,
is "//L4. —• M'a jor Professor
C S ' * ( C ^ t . Minor Professor
Chairman of the Department of Art
Dehn. of the Graduate School
I v
Reed, Emil Patrick, An Investigation of Line and
Plane Relationships in Two Concepts of Painting.
Master of Arts (Art), May, 1971, 26 pp., 8 illustrations,
bibliography, 16 titles.
The problem of this investigation is the combining of
the spatial concepts of Paul Cezanne and the Analytical
Cubists in a single painting. A series of paintings were
undertaken to examine (explore) this spatial combination.
Of the paintings completed, eight are illustrated and de-
scribed in detail. In this study, the method whereby these
spatial concepts were activated rests upon the assumptions*
(1) the basic structural elements of the paintings are line
and plane; (2) the structural elements are expressed visibly
by modifying the canvases with color, valu^pknd texture.
Cezanne's paintings retain illusory depth by careful
use of color, value and overlapping planes. The forms of
the subject are flattened. However, by re-enforcing edges
of planes with line, this flattened effect suggests, visually,
that space and form (^y)interchange, The Cubists carried
this visual phenomenon to an extreme, but logical conclusion.
They used line as an axis along which small planes or facets
of the subject and the space around it are aligned
(juxtaposing). So thoroughly are space and form thus inter-
grated that the Cubists sacrificed traditional illusory depth
in their paintings.
Three approaches were used to combine Cezanne's
flattened three-dimensionality with the Cubists inter-
gration of space and form. First, line was emphasized over
plane as the primary structural element. This produced, in
part, the desired spatial effect similar to Cezanne's flat-
ness, The approach also resulted in a visual reproduction
of the Cubistic faceting.
Second, line was omitted and the painting was structured
wholly with plane. This approach proved to be the most
successful method of retaining illusory depth while justa-
posing space and form.
Third, a balanced emphasis of line and plane approach
was tried. The results of this method varied greatly in
success. It was found that the similarity of the planes of
the subject to the flat canvas was so great that structural
line was suppressed or visually rejected as a structural
member in a painting. Only in the final painting of the
investigation did this approach prove successful.
The conclusions of this study are that the spatial
concepts of Cezanne and the Cubists can be combined in a
single painting. The varying degrees of success indicate a
definite need for further experimentation.
AN INVESTIGATION OF LINE AND PLANE RELATIONSHIPS
IN TWO CONCEPTS OF PAINTING
THESIS
Presented to the Graduate Council, of the
North Texas State University in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
fiy
Erail Patrick Reed, B. A,
Denton, Texas
May, 1971
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS iv
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATION 1
II. ANALYSES OF SELECTED PAINTINGS 9
III. CONCLUSIONS 20
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . 24
tii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Plates Page
1. Canyonesque I (24" x 36") 10
2. Cranes (34" x 48") * . . . . . . . . . . . . * 11
3. Canyonesque II (36" x 43") 12
4. City at Sunset (48" x 72") . . . . , , . , , , 13
5. Canyonesque III (36" x 48"). . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Basaltic Erosion (48" x 60") . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Archaeological Puzzle (48" x 96"). . . . . . . 17
8. Marienberg Festung (48" x 60") . 19
iv
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATION
By the end of the fifteenth century the problems of
perspective and spatial, depth in painting had largely been
solved by Western European artists.1 These two aspects in
painting had been well known to the ancient Greeks and 2
Romans, but during the Medieval Period they were, for the
most part, lost to Western Art. The re-established primacy
of these two aspects continued to be refined, developed, and
expanded during the next three centuries.
One significant development occurred during the "Age of
Reason.M Man, the rational being, could not always depend on \
nature to appear as man knew it to be. Therefore, the
painter was encouraged to depict all that he observed in
nature as he rationally knew it to be—not as it appeared.
Adherence to what Helen Gardner calls this "Rational 3
Order" progressively reduced painting to logical protrayals,
dependent upon specific, academic principles of illusion and
light. 1. Henry S, Lucas, The Ron a It-, s anc e and the Reformation
(New York, 1960) pp. 246-252', — ~ — — ™
2 Helen Gardner, Art Threu-h the Aees (New York, 1948)
pp. 147-149, 168. ' ~' ~™
%-bid. , p. 438,
Academic painting was challenged in the nineteenth
century by a group of painters who were to become known
as "Impressionists." These men held that mere illusion of
depth created through mathematical perspective and contrived
lighting no longer sufficiently expressed all of the spatial
qualities in painting. Contrary to the academic rational
view, they insisted that nature could, and should be,
represented as it appeared to the eye of the artist. The
primary vehicle of their theories was the careful observa-
tion and reproduction in color of nature immersed in
atomosphere and affected by light. Light was to them a
profound articulator of space and form in its own right.
The intricate use of brilliant colors produced paintings
that gave a shimmering, ephemeral glimpse of the world, and
reduced the function of the canvas plane to that of backdrop.
Since light rarely penetrates much of the more substantial
portions of nature, the paintings increasingly were concerned
with a rather superficial view of what does exist in nature.
This continued infatuation with light and atmospheric depth
prompted Paul Cezanne, an Impressionist adherent, to depart
from their methods. He re-established the solidity of form
and asserted space as an equal visual, or plastic, entity in
painting.
If the Impressionists signified a definitive break with
academic painting, then Cezanne produced a radical departure.
A remarkable example of these two approaches may be seen by
comparing two paintings, one by Cezanne and the other
by the Impressionist, Renoir, of the Mont Ste. Victoire 4
viewed from the same location. Renoir's dreamy, diffused
depth is achieved by simulating with color the light-re-
fracting qualities of the atmosphere; hence, the mountain
and even the middle ground join in fading into the horizon.
Cezanne*s work achieves in contrast a sturdy, structural
unity using overlapping planes and re-enforcing edge lines.
His massing of space and form reflect the flatness of the
canvas plane, re-allying the subject matter with the two-
dimensional canvas. Indeed, as Erie Loran says, " . . .
Cezanne's space may be taken as the modern rebirth of the
classical ideal of pictoral space, which is three-dimen-
sionality conceived in relation to the two-dimensionality
of the picture plane."
Cezanne's paintings may have expressed "classical
pictoral space," but his approach to painting was so alien
to this interpretation that classical analysis of his work
becomes awkward. For the purpose of this investigation,
instead, assume the basic structural elements of a painting
to be line and plane.
4 ^ ~ — Erie Loran, Cfenne's Composition (Los Angeles, 1944) p. 100.
Ibid,, p. 32.
Line, structurally, is meant as any mark used to define
shape or to represent a contour of a plane I hence, making up 6
a formal design of a painting. This definition includes its
existence in the edges of planes. In the latter case, how-
ever, line has no distinct, separate, visible qualities to
distinguish it from the plane it defines. Line now is
implied rather than directly stated. The structural function
remains, but it is subordinated in visual fact, to the mass
of the plane it defines. In a more limited sense, line may
exhibit basic structural characteristics when its presence
in a painting is largely independent of the purpose of de-
fining any specific plane. Usually it forms, instead, an
axis along which the edges of any number of planes might be
aligned.
Plane is used in this study as an equal structural
element to line in envisioning the spatial arrangement of a
painting.
These basic elements are given visible concreteness, or
pictoral plasticity, by modifying them with color, value,
texture and line (the latter having the dual function of
structural component and a modifying role in relation to plane).
The canvas plane is a spatial entity having two axial
characteristics - height and breadth. If altered or modified
in any manner, it acquires an indicated third axis of depth
$ -Sis Heritage Dictionary of the English Lan«yjag< (New York, 1969) t * ~
and volume (usually illusory). Upon or within (illusion)
the canvas plane there visually exists an infinite number
of potential, subsequent planes that may become concrete,
plastic expressions of shape when the canvas is modified.
The extent and maimer of modification of shape produces the
visually filled volume of form. Usually shape may represent
either negative (void) or positive (filled) space, while
form indicates only positive space. To simplify analysis,
assume that negative space is "space" and positive space
is "form". The main shapes also contain even smaller po-
tential planes whose arrangement and modification can produce
visual depressions or protrusions of space and form.
Cezanne's concern for the importance of these smaller planes,
or "modulations", can be seen by the care in which he built
them up with layers of color. Individually, they appear as
facets of the larger shapes,
Cezanne used line often as a modifier to re-enforce the
shape of major planes, and to flatten their overall form.
Line began to gain an axial, structural significance only iri
his later paintings, particularly a group painted of a quarry
called Bibemus. Line, in these paintings, is again used as a
re-enforcement of the plane edges. Yet, Cezanne has so boldly
stated line that it tends to dominate the planes it modifies.
In some areas it provides an independent axis along which a
number of the planes are aligned.
7 Loran, pp. 60, 62, 70, 114,
The approach to painting structure through line and
plane increasingly suggests, in Cezanne1 s mature work., the
interchangeability of the visual nature of space and form.
The substance of form might assume the attributes of space
and vice versa. These spatial effects of Cezanne's were
not lost on a group of artists known as "Cubists."
The Cubists, during their analytical period, sought to
pursue the spatial organization developed by Cezanne to a
more advanced level. Their efforts, however, sharply depart-
ed from Cezanne1s technique. First, the Cubists relied
primarily upon value for plastic effect rather than upon the
brilliant, Impressionist pallette of Cezanne. Second, line
was used as a structural element axially to a degree that
Cezanne never approached. Line was the space and form dis-
ruptor along which the increasingly smaller planes or facets
might be aligned. A sculptural view of the subject matter was
adopted, not for the purpose of illusory, three-dimensional
representation, but to provide additional aspects of the sub-
ject that could be arranged in linear fashion on the canvas
plane, A spatial paradox was produced in which space and form
often reverse roles or become indistinguishable altogether.
Carefully using value changes, the Cubists retained the volume
of space end form only in detail. The overall patterning
effect of the canvas surface, however, increased the dominance
of. the canvas plane, resulting in what are, to a great extent,
two-dimensional paintings«
The Analytical Cubists* efforts were logical exten-
sions of Cezanne's deliberately ordered pictoral space.
Yet where Cezanne created substantial masses of space and
form without rejecting the existence of illusory depth,
the Cubists, by juxtaposing various aspects of the subject
in linear fashion, severely limited the substance of form,
and to a great extent, the existence of depth. The results
of these two approaches are quite different, but the
affinity of their spatial methodology appears clear.
J*
The developmental junction of Cezanne and the Cubists,
I believe, provides opportunities for the investigation of
spatial concepts that may include both approaches in a
single painting. A number of experiments which were in-
fluenced by these painters convinced me that such a develop-
ment was possible. The experiments further prompted the
following intentions s
1. The spatial structure in the paintings
of this investigation would be produced by the
elements of line and plane. The above elements would
be modified and visually expressed with color, value,
texture and line (when the latter is not used
structurally as previously mentioned),
2. The paintings would be conceived so that
space and form are rearranged or juxtaposed along
8
linear axes (after the fashion of the Cubists)
without losing Cezanne*s substantiality of space,
form, or overall illusory depth.
3. A visual undulation of the canvas sur-
face should be possible when a combination of the
above concepts of Cezanne and the Cubists are used.
The results should provide a working concept in
painting, indicating what emphasis should be made
(if any) in favor of line or plane.
A series of paintings was then undertaken as a practical
investigation. Upon completion, each painting was subjected
to analysis using the above intentions as a means of critique.
CHAPTER II
ANALYSES OF SELECTED PAINTINGS
The period of painting covered by this investigation
falls generally within the year of 1970. The very earliest
experimental efforts have been omitted because they reflect
diverse points of view held at that time. Further, to avoid
the possibility of repetitious and unnecessarily lengthy
discussion, the number of paintings has been limited to
those that have direct, significant bearing upon the problem<
All of the paintings completed for this study were done in
the medium of acrylic polymer on canvas, The analyses begin
with the painting that first exhibits a cohesive direction
toward the concepts previously mentioned, and are listed in
the order of their completion,
Canyonesque I
The purpose of Canyonesque I (Plate I) was to establish
a simple composition of receding and protruding planes. The
blue and black modifiers began to assume the properties of
space, while the siennas and ochres suggested the rudiments
of form. Since the darker spaces and would-be forma in
the center of the canvas were somewhat scattered, I per-
ceived that the disruption of space and form might be en-
hanced by the direct: addition of line. This produced the
10
desired disruptive results, but added nothing to the depth
of the work which retained only two spatial positions-
the canvas surface and the visual plane immediately behind.
Plate l--Canyonesque I (24"x36")
By adding yellow and red areas, 1 had hoped to create forms
of visual protrusion, and an intermediate plane to the
canvas. This attempt was only partially successful. What
was more important was the visual bridge that the red areas
created between form and space. This activity becomes
especially effective in the upper central portion of the
painting. The yellow addition produced protruding visual
forms but did little to integrate space and form.
11
y»
An interpretation of Cezanne's substantial form exists
in the lower left quadrant of the painting. The disruptive,
linear, Cubist influence is reflected in the upper central
portion, These two concepts, along with the rest of the
painting, do not wed themselves well as a whole, yet none
appear out of place on the same canvas,
Cranes
Cranes (Plate 2) is an example of first using directly
applied line. Planes were added to provide re-enforcement of the
forms thus derived. So prominent is line in this case that the
lighterj brighter colors recede, giving the linear structures a
protruding appearance. Where line performs as an edge re-enforc-
er, the cranes assume the characteristics of both form and space,
•Plate 2--Cranes (34Mx48M)
12
The major planes of the painting act mainly as backdrop,
and only begin to participate in a form-to-space activity
in the lower central portion of the painting.
The two spatial concepts exist in incomplete union,
but where they do act together, their qualities work well
in relation to the canvas plane.
Canyonesque II
In contrast to the previous painting, Canyonesque II
(Plate 3) was structured primarily by planes to determine
if the effects of the two concepts could be demonstrated
without the direct application of line. As work prog-
ressed, however, overlapping planes of varying transparency
tended to give a strong visual indication of line.
Plate 3--Canyonesque II (36"x48")
13
While not structurally disruptive in character, line is
essential in a subordinate role, by holding space and form
together in relation to the canvas plane.
Hie movement of space into form can be clearly seen in
the black area of the upper left quadrant. Here, the central
black void or space assumes the character of form as it moves
toward the upper left corner. This and other minor areas
are reminiscent of Cezanne's and the Cubists* spatial
qualities. The total painting, however, produces a spatial
feeling that is rather independent of those two.
City at Sunset
A balanced emphasis of line and plane was the approach
used in City at Sunset (Plate 4). The darker areas and the
linear shapes were established prior to the application of color.
Plate 4--City at Sunset (48"x72M)
14
When the various spaces and forms were completed, line had
lost most of its structural value. It continued to act as
a strong re-enforcing modifier, particularly in the upper
left and lower right quadrants. Space and form remain flex-
ible, successfully creating visual undulation of the canvas
surface for the first time in the investigation.
Canyonesque III
A second attempt (Canyonesque III, Plate 5) was made to
establish a balanced plane and line approach. The planes were
established, and to a certain extent refined, before introduc-
ing directly applied line. The results were unfortunate.
Plate 5--Canyonesque III (36,,x48")
15
The linear forms neither re-enforced nor disrupted the
established planes, and, in fact, did not relate to the
planes at all# The lines did relate negatively to the
canvas plane alone, giving it the visual appearance of
being ruptured or ripped (photograph of this stage is not
available). To rectify this situation, all of the painting,
with the exception of the top portion of the upper right
quadrant, was obliterated. The forms and spaces were
established in a manner similar to Canyonesque IX, Plate 3.
The relationship of the parts to the canvas plane were
thus re-established; but the major planes exhibit little
tendency to express illusory depth and the painting remains
spatially weak.
Basaltic Erosion
The difficulties of relating line and plane experi-
enced in the previous painting forced me to question the
balanced approach. Basaltic Erosion (Plate 6), then, is
a return to the "plane" structure. The illusory depth
achieved is far more successful than in any previous
painting. The lighter reddish-brown areas of the center
overlap the back planes which in turn produce the effect
of forms silhouetted against the atmospheric blue backdrop.
Illusory depth is then countered where the blue areas are
adjacent and contiguous to the lighter red-brcnm colors.
16
Plate 6--Easaltic Erosion (48"x60")
The concept of visual form to space and back again is carried
out in a very extensive scale in this painting. As a result
the visual undulation is so thorough, that even the canvas
edges are in active participation.
Archaeological Puzzle
Archaeological Puzzle was begun about the same time as
Canyonesque II (seen in Plate 3), Due to the size and propor-
tions (four feet by eight feet) of Archaeological Puzzle, I
did not feel sufficiently experienced in spatial organization
17
to continue at that time, beyond blocking in the major
shapes. When I returned to this painting (see Plate 7),
I found that its initial arrangement would not lend it-
self well to the application of line. It was completed
in a similar manner to that of the preceding painting.
Plate 7--Archaeological Puzzle (48"x96u)
Perhaps the most important aspect of this painting is
its effect on my concept of linear structure. In later paint-
ings that were proving unsuccessful in their linear considera*
tions t I referred to Archaeological Puzzle as a problem-
solving device. Linear construction of the paintings in
Plates one and two was a result mainly of intuitive process,
applied as the situation seemed to warrant. The conscious
application of line thereafter resulted in either a
suppression of line as a structural member or a failure to
18
relate line to a painting at all. Initially in Cranes
(Plate 2), line was to be the dominant structural member.
It then occurred to me that if the affinity of the two-
dimensional nature of planes to the canvas is so great, and
if they are considered first, or in balance with line as
structural members, then planes will dominate the painting
and suppress or exclude line as a structural element. There-
fore, if line is to act in a major structural role, it must
be given first consideration in planning and allowed to
dominate the plane considerations. The degree of dominance
depends upon the size of the canvas, its proportions, and
probably the nature of the subject matter.
Marienberg Festung
The procedures suggested in the preceding discussion
were tested in Marienberg Festung (Plate 8). To a certain
extent, I relied on the Cubist method of viewing the subject
matter (a large, fortified castle in Germany) sculpturally
in order to relate various linear axes. As planes of color
were added, it became apparent that the linear considerations
were not sufficiently emphasized to assert line as a dominant
structural force. Yet line is not greatly suppressed or
totally rejected by the planes.
19
Plate 8--Marlenberg Festung (48Six60")
At first glance, the massive treatment of the major
planes in this painting strongly reflect Cezanne's influence
upon the solidit}7, of form and retention of illusory depth.
The arrangement of the forms in relation to space, however,
are based upon the Cubist method of juxtaposing. The
patterning effect of the Cubists' paintings is not strongly
evident because their linearly arranged facets of space and
form have been greatly reduced in favor of larger, more
substantial planes.
CHAPTER III
CONCLUSIONS
The process of developing a painting approach using
the spatial concepts of Cezanne and the Analytical Cubists
in a single painting is continuing. This investigation is
sufficiently advanced, however, to make some concluding
remarks on the intentions as stated in Chapter I, and upon
the direction of my efforts in general.
The spatial structure in the paint-
ings of this investigation would be produced by
the elements of line and plane. The above elements
would be modified and visually expressed with color»
value, texture and line (when the latter is not used
structurally as previously mentioned).
The paintings reproduced in Plates 3, 6 and 7, indicate
perhaps most clearly that the spatial structure of a painting
may not only be defined in terms of plane, but that this
approach provides a useful working tool in planning the
organization of a painting.
Line, in this investigation, fulfilled the general
definition given it in Chapter I. However, it only partially
achieved the bold8 Cubist structure that I had anticipated.
Plates 1, 2 and 8 exhibit varying successful linear relation-
ships .
20
21
The difficulty in intergratirig line and plane in a painting
lies with the similar flat characteristics of the sub-
sequent planes and the two-dimensional canvas surface.
The procedures discussed in Archaeological Puzzle (Plate 7),
and tested in Marienberg Festung (Plate 8) appear to promise
a better approach to this problem,
With the exception of line; the elements of color, value
and texture, were used throughout the investigation as the
modifiers that express visually the nature of the basic
structural organizations. The somewhat narrow approach to
these modifiers created no significant problems during the
course of the paintings.
2* The painting would be conceived so that
space and form are re-arranged or juxtaposed along:
linear axes (after the fashion of the Cubists) with-
out losing Cezanne's substantiality of space, form,
or overall illusory depth.
Linear organization is most clearly depicted in Plates 2,
4, and 8, The general direction in applying line and arrang-
ing planes along linear axes is most successfully indicated
in the painting Marienberg Festung (Plate 8). All of the
paintings of this study contain some degree of space and form
juxtaposing. However, this visual rendering is best exhibited
in Plates 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8. With the exception of Canyonesque
III (Plate 5) all of the paintings express definite illusory
depth. I can only conclude that this intention is sub-
stantially correct although the painting results vary.
22
3. A visual undulation of the canvas surface
should be possible when a combination of the above
concepts of Cezanne and the Cubists are used. The
results should provide a working concept in painting,
indicating, what emphasis should be made (if any) in
favor of line or plane.
A series of paintings were then undertaken as a practical
investigation. Upon completion, each painting was subjected
to analysis using the above intentions as a means of critique.
The visual undulation of the canvas plane is best demonstra-
ted in City at Sunset (Plate 4), Spatial depth, however, is
limited due to the restricted number of colors and values used.
Undulation is also exhibited when the canvas edge is actively
involved as part of the composition (see Basaltic Erosion,
Plate 6). Specific conceptual formulae for painting usually
stifles spontaneity and limits an artist's range in painting.
However, in combining Cezanne's and the Cubists* approach in
one painting, a general working conceptual hypothesis can be
made. Line, therefore, in all circumstances, must be emphasized
over plane if it is to be expressed as a definite structural
component of a painting. The amount of this emphasis appears
to be related to the proportion and size of the canvas. Hence,
the smaller and the more equal sided canvases require less
emphasis of line.
23
The majority of the paintings completed for this in-
vestigation often bear little resemblance to the works of
either Cezanne or the Analytical Cubists. This was expected J
for had my efforts copied the works of these masters, the
entire undertaking would have resulted in a patchwork of
styles• Rather, I have sought to use Cezanne's and the
Cubists * remarkable spatial findings as a strong foundation
upon which to extend and develop an individual approach to
qualities of space and form on a two-dimensional surface.
Had all of the points of the intentions been com-
pletely affirmed by this investigation, the direction of my
painting in this vein would have undoubtedly reached a con-
ceptual dead end. Much experimentation remains to be done
in integrating the concepts of Cezanne and the Cubists. On
the other hand, nothing produced by my efforts invalidates
the idea that these two spatial concepts, as expressed with
line and plane, can be used in a single painting. Finally,
the difficulties that arose during the course of my investi-
gations indicate a healthy trend toward developing a
singular painting style.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, New York, American Heritage Publishing Company, 1969.
Barr, Alfred H,, Jr., Masters of Modern Art. New York, The Museum of Modern Art, 1958.
Bouleau, Charles, The Painter's Secret Geometry. New York, Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1963.
Braque, Georges, Georges Braque« His Graphic Work« New York, Harry "N. ABraras, Inc. , Publishers, 1961,
Gardner, Helen, Art Through the Age3. New York, Harcourt, Brace and* Company, Inc., 1948.
Gray, Christopher, Cubist Aethetic Theories. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins Press, 1956.
Habasque, Guy, Cubism. Paris, Editions d'Art Albert Skira, 1959.
Janis, Harriet and Sidney, Picasso-The Recent Years 1939" 1946. New York, Doubleday and CompanyIncT, 19<46.
Liberman, Alexander, The Artist in His Studio. New York, The Viking Press, 1960.
Loran, Erie, Cezanne' s Compos it ion-Ana lysis of His. Form. Berkley and Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1944.
Lucas, Henry S., The Renaissance and, the Reformation. New York, Harper and Brothers, 1960."
Mack, Gerstle, Paul Cezanne. New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1935.
Rasmussen, Henry N., Art Structure. New York, Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1948.
24
25
Rewald, John, Paul Cezanne. New York, Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1948.
Rosenblum, Robert, Cubism and Twentieth-Century Art, New York, Harry N. Abrams, Inc., Publishers, 1960.
Skira, Albert and Jean Leymarie, Brague. Cleveland, The World Publishing Company, 1961.